While many Catholics are deeply asleep, German bishops and “pope” Francis are collaborating to decentralize the Church

By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Francis I

When, last month, during the evil Synod, Francis called for a "healthy decentralisation" of power in the Roman Catholic Church, including changes in the papacy and greater decision-making authority for local bishops, many Catholics, as usual, —and thoughtless as they are—didn’t just care to consider the implication of what he was actually talking about. Francis made the comments at a ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Synod of Bishops, a worldwide gathering that occasionally advises the pope on a host of issues. Then he said the type of collegiality—the papal governing of the Church in collaboration with bishops—envisaged by the (evil) reforming 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council still had not been achieved. National and regional bishops' conferences should have more authority to make decisions affecting the faithful in their areas rather than always looking to Rome for a centralised decision that has to fit all, he said. "In this sense, I feel the need to move ahead with a healthy decentralisation," he said. Francis also said it was "necessary and urgent to think about a conversion of the papacy", a possibility that was first floated even by the late John Paul II in 1995. Without elaborating, Francis said "more light could be shed" on the exercising of the papacy, both within the 1.2 billion member Church and in its relations with other (heretical) “Christian churches” that split from Rome over the primacy of the papacy.

Now, here come the enemies once again, and one wonders when Catholics will wake up from their apathetic slumber to see clearly these enemies who are simply out to kill them all! 

Maike Hickson of LifeSiteNews reports:

The German bishops, sixty-seven of them, recently visited Rome together for their obligatory Ad Limina visit with Francis from November 16-20. This Ad Limina visit, which is obligatory for all bishops of the world, was of a special importance, inasmuch as the German bishops played an important role during the recent controversial Synod of Bishops on Marriage and the Family in Rome. The German bishops' last Ad Limina visit was, surprisingly, some nine years ago, instead of the prescribed five years. Unlike previous popes, however, Pope Francis does not meet the bishops individually during such a visit in order to receive an account of the state of their dioceses, but only in smaller groups. At the end of the nearly week-long visit, he met in a plenary session with all German bishops together, on 20 November. On this occasion, Pope Francis, as well as the head of the German Bishops' Conference, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, both gave a speech.

In his own speech, Pope Francis pointed out the decline of the Catholic Faith in Germany, with a dwindling Mass attendance and a comparably diminishing practice of the Sacrament of Confession. The Holy Father said “one can truly speak of an erosion of the Catholic Faith in Germany.” And he added: “Whereas in the 1960’s the faithful almost everywhere attended Mass every Sunday, today it is often less than 10 percent."

When asking himself what the remedy could be for the loss of Faith in Germany, the Pontiff proposed something inspired “by the life of the early Christians.” With reference to the collaborators of St. Paul, Priscilla and Aquila, a married couple, the pope thus stressed the important role of the laymen, the “volunteers,” as he called them. Pope Francis continued: “The example of these 'volunteers' may cause us to think, especially in the face of the tendency for a growing institutionalization of the Church. More and more structures are being created, although the faithful are missing.” In his eyes, this “exaggerated centralization” is what is making the Church's life “more complicated.” For Pope Francis, the Church somehow has to be more “alive” and thus “can be causing unrest and can also be inspiring.”

Cardinal Reinhard Marx, archbishop of Munich, made reference to a similar theme when he expressed his gratitude for the pope's recent October 17 speech on Synodality and a Decentralization of the Church. After first declaring that the German bishops will soon publish their own proclamation concerning the question of the pastoral care for marriages and the family, Cardinal Marx said:

"Holy Father, the German bishops are grateful that you – in order to deepen and continue the discussion of these themes [of marriage and the family] – chose to take the Synodal Path which has now led to the Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops and which, in turn – and we do request you to do it – will open us up into a new stage with the help of the document soon to be written by you".

Cardinal Marx also said that a “Synodal Church” would help establish more decentralization in the Church's structures in relation to the pope's central governance. Such a readjustment of proportions, in Marx's eyes, is necessary “due to the diversity of the developments and the disparate cultural situations in the different parts of a globalized, yet interconnected world.”

In a similar vein, several prominent German and Swiss voices have expressed their support for the concept of a further decentralized and more synodal Church. For example, Father Bernd Hagenkord, S.J., head of the German branch of Vatican Radio, stated: “Decentralization is on the agenda, as Pope Francis explained in more detail in his speech on occasion of the [50th] Anniversary of the Synod of Bishops.” And Hagenkord stressed: “We are now living in a free society in which centralism is not any more the order of the day.”

The Swiss Bishops Conference's official website kath.ch also published an article about the theme of  decentralization and the necessity to give more weight to the national bishops' conferences. It also makes reference to an article by Father Herrman Pottmeyer who is a declared opponent of the unique charism of papal supremacy. He had been one of the participants of the controversial Spadaro seminar which had caused some suspicion because it was organized right before the recent October 4-25 Synod of Bishops on the Family. Pottmeyer, in his own comments about Pope Francis' proposals for more decentralization, proclaimed that the papal call for a more “synodal Church” has “initiated the end of Roman centralism.” He refers to “the intended re-vivification of the original synodal practice of the Church” which is even now purportedly being revived. Pottmeyer, himself a professor of Fundamental Theology, sees it to be necessary that the local churches “have more weighty influence” in the universal Church and that “national, as well as regional, bishops' conferences – or particular councils – receive an enlargement of their legitimate competencies.”

The theme of a decentralized Church has caused an intervention, during the last Synod on the Family, by the retired Cardinal Arinze. In an interview with LifeSiteNews, he pointed out that on issues of faith and morals, such as homosexuality and marriage, the local churches may not teach differently than Rome. He said:

The Ten Commandments are not subject to national frontiers. A bishops’ conference in a country cannot agree that stealing from a bank is not sinful in that country, or that divorced persons who are remarried can receive Holy Communion in that country, but when you cross the boundary and go to another country it now becomes a sin.

Moreover, Voice of the Family, a coalition of pro-life and pro-family organizations, also expressed some grave reservations concerning this apparently planned decentralization of the Church which could even lead to an undermining of the Church's clear doctrinal and moral teaching. Voice of the Family concluded its own article with the following statement:

“ “Decentralization” has been demanded by prelates who are openly stating that they wish to see Episcopal Conferences depart from the faith and practice of the Universal Church. Far from correcting such prelates Pope Francis has often, as in the case of Cardinal Marx, appointed them to positions of influence. It is reasonable therefore for Catholics to be gravely concerned when he echoes their call for decentralization. Pope Francis can only restore trust by publicly correcting heresy and by ending his practice of conferring honours and influence on prelates who reject the Catholic faith.”

Pope Francis himself had also dwelt in his recent speech on the importance of establishing a more decentralized Church, especially with the help of the national bishops' conferences. He said:

“The second level is that of Ecclesiastical Provinces and Ecclesiastical Regions, Particular Councils and, in a special way, Conferences of Bishops. We need to reflect on how better to bring about, through these bodies, intermediary instances of collegiality, perhaps by integrating and updating certain aspects of the ancient ecclesiastical organization. The hope expressed by the Council that such bodies would help increase the spirit of episcopal collegiality has not yet been fully realized”.

This strengthening of the local churches and a further decentralization of the Church, in the sense of a stronger “synodality,”  also has for Pope Francis anecumenical importance, as he points out more explicitly a little later:

“The commitment to build a synodal Church — a mission to which we are all called, each with the role entrusted him by the Lord — has significant ecumenical implications. For this reason, speaking recently to a delegation from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, I reaffirmed my conviction that “a careful examination of how, in the Church’s life, the principle of synodality and the service of the one who presides are articulated, will make a significant contribution to the progress of relations between our Churches.” ”

In a way, this speech may therefore well be understood as a further papal attempt to weaken the role of the pope, a uniquely privileged office which has always been a stumbling block for the other Christian groups or denominations – Protestant or Orthodox. In stressing the desirably decentralized and synodal character of the Catholic Church, a rapprochement with the other ostensibly Christian churches might thereby be intended.

Source: LifeSiteNews

See also the following: http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/10/here-are-what-every-catholic-should_10.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/10/bergoglios-encouragement-of-airing.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/10/decentralisation-so-whats-difference.html

Jorge Bergoglio's Religion: Freemasonry (Naturalism, Rationalism, Deism)

Jorge Bergoglio

By Father Paul Kramer

Father Paul Kramer

Those who doubt that "Pope" Francis is the destroyer prophesied by St. Francis of Assisi, need only read the article below to understand that Bergoglio is a sworn enemy of Catholicism who deliberately demolishes the Church. Bergoglio is more radical in his revolt than Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchton, Knox and Cranmer all together. (http://www.maurizioblondet.it/involontaria-ammissione-di-el-papa-a-quelli-che-perseguita/).

Jorge Bergoglio is the Public Enemy No. 1 of the Catholic religion. Bergoglio teaches that even those without faith can be saved—neither is there need to obey God's commandments. Obedience to one's own faithless conscience suffices for salvation, according to Bergoglio. Divine Revelation teaches there is no justification or salvation without faith, and that the divine commandments must be obeyed: "Tu mandásti mandáta tua custodíri nimis"; and, "maledicti qui declinant a mandatis tuis" (Ps. 118); " Convertántur peccatóres in inférnum, omnes Gentes quæ obliviscúntur Deum" (Ps. 9), and, "sic viae omnium qui obliviscuntur Deum et spes hypocritae peribit" (Iob. 8:13).

As I have said many times: Jorge Bergoglio is a perfidious and godless infidel. The persecution he has unleashed on the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is patently the work of an enemy of the Church: http://www.maurizioblondet.it/involontaria-ammissione-di-e…/  ...prays with the Rev Jens-Martin Kruse during a visit to the Lutheran church.

Make no mistake—Bergoglio is a faithless apostate

At the end of the synod, Bergoglio declared in yet another interview with Eugenio Scalfari:

"This is the bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.”

These are the words of Fr. Bergoglio: "ALL THE DIVORCED WHO ASK [for Holy Communion] WILL BE ADMITTED." (http://fatima.org/perspectives/sd/perspective798.asp)

What utter contempt for God's law. Bergoglio does not believe in Christ's doctrine on marriage—Jorge B. is an infidel—a faithless heathen who openly denies the most basic dogmas and moral teachings of the Church. He is not a member of the Catholic Church, nor its pope.

"First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that—and this is fundamental—God's mercy has no limits . . . the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience."

The key words are: "those who do not believe and do not seek faith." Does God forgive them? Bergoglio says, "God's mercy has no limits . . . the issue for those who do not believe in God is obeying their own conscience" (!!!) and:

"The goodness or the wickedness of our behaviour depends on this decision"

Note also the moral relativism: "listening and obeying it [conscience], means deciding about what is perceived to be good or evil"

Bergoglio states with unmistakable clarity that one with no faith at all obtains forgiveness from God by obeying his conscience: "deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil." 
For Bergoglio, the conscience is autonomous: the "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not" commandments are nullified -- human dignity (according to Bergoglio's Masonic creed) demands that the human person decide for himself what is right or wrong, without the tyranny of "clericalism" dictating to man's conscience, "Thou shalt not!"

Bergoglio's economy of salvation dispenses entirely with any need for faith -- faith is utterly superfluous. Salvation depends exclusively on following one's own autonomous conscience; and absolutely no one may dictate to that conscience by claiming to teach in God's name with divine authority.

This is Bergoglio's religion. It is as far removed from Christianity as heaven is from hell. Bergoglio's religion is not Catholicism -- it is Masonism in its purest form. His creed is essentially identical to that of the godless Enlightenment freethinker, Lord Shaftesbury (1671 - 1713): " The articles of Shaftesbury's religious creed were few and simple, but these he entertained with a conviction amounting to enthusiasm. They may briefly be summed up as a belief in one God whose most characteristic attribute is universal benevolence, in the moral government of the universe, and in a future state of man making up for the imperfections and repairing the inequalities of the present life." AH! The Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man. (cf. Wikipedia). Shaftesbury's moral doctrine is that of the "Moral Sense", of which the two most basic principles are:

"1 that the distinction between right and wrong is part of the constitution of human nature; 2. that morality stands apart from theology, and the moral qualities of actions are determined apart from the arbitrary will of God."

Fr. Cornelio Fabro cites the verbatim quotation (Introduzione all"ateismo moderno) in which Shaftesbury declares that religion does not consist in believing tenets of revelation, but in morality. His religion was essentially Deism and Rationalism. (cf.- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/shaftesbury/#8).

Lest anyone think Scalfari fabricated the above Bergoglio quotation, here's a a parallel passage in Bergoglio's sermon:

Francesco, il capo della Chiesa Cattolica Romana ha affermato che anche gli atei vanno in paradiso. Pochi giorni fa infatti, ha raccontato la storia di un parrocchiano Cattolico che chiese ad un prete se anche gli atei erano stati salvati da Gesù, ed ha detto:

‘Il Signore ci ha creati a Sua immagine e somiglianza, e noi siamo l’immagine del Signore, ed Egli fa del bene e tutti noi abbiamo questo comandamento nel cuore: fai il bene e non fare il male. Tutti noi. ‘Ma, Padre, questo non è Cattolico! Non può fare il bene’. Sì, può farlo …. ‘Il Signore ha redento tutti noi, tutti noi, con il Sangue di Cristo: tutti noi, non solo Cattolici. Tutti! ‘Padre, e gli atei?’ Anche gli atei. Tutti!’ …. Dobbiamo incontrarci facendo il bene. ‘Ma, Padre, io non credo, sono un ateo!’ Ma fai il bene: noi ci incontreremo là’ [in paradiso].

Ecco le parole in inglese così come sono state pubblicate dall’Huffington Post:

“The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”.. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

http://giacintobutindaro.org/…/secondo-papa-francesco-anch…/

Bergoglio in, Heaven and Earth:

"As I am a believer, I know that these riches are a gift from God. I also know that the other person, the atheist, does not know that. I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him and I show myself as I am. Where there is knowledge, there begins to appear esteem, affection, and friendship. I do not have any type of reluctance, nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person; even less, if he shows me those human virtues that exalt others and do me good."

Jorge Bergoglio is the Spearhead of the Great Apostasy

As Cardinal Ciappi wrote on the Third Secret of Fatima, "[T]he great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." The collect for the XVIIth Sunday After Pentecost implores God to protect His faithful from the diabolical poison (the false opinions being spewed daily by Jorge Bergoglio and his Mason occupied Vatican), so they may avoid this contagion and follow the divine truths perpetually taught by the Catholic Church with a pure mind:

Orémus

Da, quaesumus, Domine, populo tuo diabolica vitare contagia: et te solum Deum pura mente sectari. Per Dóminum . . .

Bergoglio's deadly poison, is faithlessness, which produces the death of the soul. The first Great Commandment is this: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind." (Mt. 22:37) This commandment unconditionally demands that we believe in God, believe his revelation, and obey His precepts. "This is the greatest and the first commandment." (v. 38). This is the basis of the Second Commandment, "And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (v. 39) The Second hinges directly from the first; since, without the need to believe, love, and obey God, there cannot exist an obligation to love one's neighbor or oneself. We are bound absolutely by Divine Law to observe these commandments, because God has commanded us to obey them; and not because we are convinced in our own mind that they are correct. 

To believe God and to obey Him is the basis of all religion, which we must do in order to be saved: "On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets." (v. 40) If we refuse to believe in God, we are damned as infidels; and if we refuse to believe what He reveals, we are likewise damned as infidels: "he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mk. 16:16).

Bergoglio says he believes in God, and in Jesus Christ, but he explicitly rejects His teaching: "You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don't believe and who don't seek the faith." Bergoglio's reply: "The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience." (!) (Michael Day (11 September 2013)."Pope Francis assures atheists: You don't have to believe in God to go to heaven". London: The Independent.) Thus, his remark about the redemption of atheists hinges on this perverse principle -- " [God] has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ... Even the atheists, Everyone!” (David Gibson (May 22, 2013). "Pope Francis: God redeemed everyone, ‘not just Catholics’". The Washington Post.)

Hence, it is manifestly evident that Jorge Bergoglio is not a Christian at all, but an apostate and infidel. The incontrovertable proof consists in the fact that Bergoglio denies the very first principle and basis of all religion -- BELIEF, and he explicitly opposes, contradicts, and rejects the teaching of Christ on this most fundamental point which is the basis of all religion. Bergoglio preaches a false religion which does not require faith for salvation, but explicitly professes the opinion that men can be saved even if they don't believe in God. Thus, when Bergoglio says that all are redeemed, "even atheists" -- the clear and indisputable context of his words manifests that he intends the term "redeemed" to be understood in the sense that it is used in the liturgy -- thus meaning "æterna redemptio" -- "eternal redemption" which is equivalent to "salus æterna" or "eternal salvation". 

Thus, Bergoglio flatly denies the most fundamental teaching of the entire Scripture and Tradition of both testaments. Infidelity is the "maximun omnium peccatorum", as St. Thomas explains. Hence, sin, for people who have no faith, is first and foremost the sin of unbelief, regardless of whether they obey their perverted conscience or not. One who denies the necessity to assent to divine revelation explicitly rejects the authority of the revealing God. Bergoglio is a manifest apostate and infidel -- and therefore is not a member of the Catholic Church, nor its visible head on earth.* Bergoglio's religion is a different religion than the Catholic religion, because his God is not the transcendent Catholic God, but the immanent "god" of Teilhard de Chardin and the Freemasons: "I believe in God - not in a Catholic God; there is no Catholic God." This is what he meant when he said, "God does not exist; do not be shocked" -- he's saying he believes in a god that is not the God of Christians as God and His attributes are understood by the perpetual tradition of Catholic theology and dogma.

It is not mere gibberish when he says, "There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are persons, they are not some vague idea in the clouds ... This God spray does not exist! The three persons exist!" Jorge Bergoglio has denied the transcendent Most High God who reveals infallible dogmas and commandments (Whom he reduces to the status of a "vague idea in the clouds"; a "God spray" which "does not exist"); and has replaced Him with a "god" who is "persons" whose revelation is received not by supernatural means, but in one's conscience: His religion is the Enlightenment "religion" of revelation experienced in one's heart -- of an immanent Deity which reveals itself in natural human experience. Thus, the absolute primacy of one's own conscience rather than the Commandments of God. Bergoglio's religion is patently that which is based on perfidious "liberal theology" which had sprung forth from the faithless Enlightenment, and his moral doctrine likewise is the vague Enlightenment belief in the "Moral Sense", as professed by the infidel Lord Shaftsbury. There cannot be salvation by means of the works of obeying one's conscience alone without supernatural faith in God, since justification cannot be accomplished by mere human works without the sanctification of justifying grace which is received by faith and not works: "For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law." Hence, one cannot parttake of redemption without faith: " But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him." (Heb. 11:6) According to Bergoglio there can be redemption without faith. According to Divine Revelation, there cannot be redemption without faith. Bergoglio does not believe the Divine Revelation -- he does not believe God who speaks in Revelation. Thus, Jorge Bergoglio is an infidel -- he is not a Catholic. To be a Catholic, one must profess the FAITH of the Church:

St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Ch. 2:

" [6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."

Ch. 3:

"7.] What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

[8.] But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in various times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."

Ch. 4:

" [10.] So also when the Arian poison had infected not an insignificant portion of the Church but almost the whole world, so that a sort of blindness had fallen upon almost all the bishops of the Latin tongue, circumvented partly by force partly by fraud, and was preventing them from seeing what was most expedient to be done in the midst of so much confusion, then whoever was a true lover and worshipper of Christ, preferring the ancient belief to the novel misbelief, escaped the pestilent infection."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

* The only valid pope is Benedict XVI, whose renunciation has been irrefutably demonstrated to be canonically defective, and therefore null & void.

Pope Benedict did not resign the Papal office, but only renounced the active ministry of the office

In order to understand the precise scope and extent of Benedict XVI's "renunciation" (not "resignation" or "abdication"), one must focus on his words which explain exactly what he renounced:

" Qui permettetemi di tornare ancora una volta al 19 aprile 2005. La gravità della decisione è stata proprio anche nel fatto che da quel momento in poi ero impegnato sempre e per sempre dal Signore. Sempre – chi assume il ministero petrino non ha più alcuna privacy. Appartiene sempre e totalmente a tutti, a tutta la Chiesa. Alla sua vita viene, per così dire, totalmente tolta la dimensione privata." ... " Il “sempre” è anche un “per sempre” - non c’è più un ritornare nel privato. La mia decisione di rinunciare all’esercizio attivo del ministero, non revoca questo."

"Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated." ... "The 'always' is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this."

Here Benedict XVI states explicitly that the gravity his decision to accept the papacy consisted in the fact that he was thereby engaged in a commitment, received from Christ, which is "for always", and his "decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this." Thus, Benedict did not renounce the Petrine office or its ministry, but only the active exercise of the ministry. He then goes on to say that he will no longer wield the power of office, but will remain "within the enclosure of St. Peter": " Non porto più la potestà dell’officio per il governo della Chiesa, ma nel servizio della preghiera resto, per così dire, nel recinto di san Pietro. San Benedetto, il cui nome porto da Papa, mi sarà di grande esempio in questo. Egli ci ha mostrato la via per una vita, che, attiva o passiva, appartiene totalmente all’opera di Dio." ("I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.").

Hence, the intention expressed by Pope Benedict is to remain in the Petrine office and retain the passive aspect of its official service (munus), i.e. "the service of prayer"; and to hand over the active aspect of the munus, i.e. exercise of governance, to a successor, who will effectively fulfill the function of a coadjutor with power of jurisdiction. Thus, Benedict's clearly expressed intention was not to abdicate the office, but only to vacate the catheIdra in the qualified sense of handing the seat of power of governance to one who will succeed him in the active governance, but not abdicating from the office itself. This solves the apparent mystery and explains why Benedict XVI refused to revert to being Cardinal Ratzinger; and why he retains his papal coat of arms and papal attire.

In his Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Pope Benedict states as the reason for his decision his waning energy and consequent inability to administer the official duties of the papacy due to advanced age: Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.

However, he states his awareness of the spiritual nature of the official service, the munus of the petrine office; namely, it is not merely active and verbal, but is to be fulfilled to no lesser degree by praying and suffering: Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. It is this passive function of the office that he expressly stated was his intention to retain in his above cited discourse of 27 Feb. 2013.

It was only the active service, the execution of the ministry regarding grave affairs of the Church and proclaiming the gospel, which he said he could no longer adequately perform: Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam.

Therefore, in the next sentence he declares his intention to renounce that ministry: Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse. As the eminent canonist Stefano Violi (quoted below) says, Benedict XVI did not resign the papal office, but only its administration. Since the Petrine office is indivisible (as Domenico Gravina OP explained ca. 1610), a partial act of renunciation is null and void due to defect of intention, and therefore does not suffice to vacate the Chair of Peter. One notices the corrected Latin in this Vatican website version of the Declaratio. In the official document the word "commissum" was used, and not "commisso" as you can see in the sentence. This is one of two glaring grammatical errors in the document that, according to the canonical custom which remains in force, renders the juridical act null & void. The 1983 Code of Canon Law states explicitly that where there is no statute or custom ruling on some matter in the Code, the jurisprudence of the Roman Curia is to be followed*. The precedents go back to Pope St. Gregory VII, as I have explained in previous posts.

However, leaving aside the question of the Latin errors; the far more weighty consideration of the pope's intention not to abdicate the munus, but only to renounce the active ministry is decisive in determining the nullity of the act. It is patent that a pope who intends to renounce the active exercise of the Petrine ministry, but who expresses his intention to retain the passive service of the munus which he received on 19 April 2005, does not vacate the office. Hence, the intention to render the chair vacant is defective, since one who intends to retains the passive exercise of the munus retains the munus, and therefore still occupies the chair.

* Can. 19 - Si certa de re desit expressum legis sive universalis sive particularis praescriptum; aut consuetudo, causa, nisi sit poenalis, dirimenda est attentis legibus latis in similibus, generalibus iuris principiis cum aequitate canonica servatis, iurisprudentia et praxi Curiae Romanae, communi constantique doctorum sententia.

The Organized Opposition that Pushed Benedict XVI Out and Brought Bergoglio in:

http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.ie/…/godfried-danneels-…

http://www.lastampa.it/Page/Id/2.4.1469410445

http://m.ncregister.com/…/cardinal-danneels-part-of-mafia…/…

The late Monsignor Mario Marini (Secretary of the Pontifical Commission 《Ecclesia Dei》) already related to me in 2008 that this group of Northern prelates had formed an organized movement against Benedict XVI. Marini specifically mentioned "Milano", where the archbishop had been Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini SJ, who eventually delivered the ultimatum to Pope Benedict XVI to resign. The revelation (made by Cardinal Martini's confessor) of the "ultimatum" was recently published in the Corriere della Sera. (And later in the Libero Quotidiano:

http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/…/Il-confessore-di-Carlo-Mar…).

Those who claim that Bergoglio's election was valid, such as Dr. Peters and the one calling himself "Magister Athanasius", are overly focused on one point of law to the extent that they neglect others. 1) The legislation of Pius XII suspends the effects of penalties of occult crimes for cardinals who enter the conclave. If the crime is public, then the cardinal(s) incurs the status of infamy, and the effects of the penalty remain. 

One may ask, at what point can it be said that the crime is public? After the 2005 conclave, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said, "We did not get our man." Another, (whose name I have forgotten said immediately after the 2005 conclave, "This pontificate [Ratzinger's] will not last more than three years." "Their man" was Bergoglio, and the report later emerged that Ratzinger had nearly enough votes to secure the election; but Bergoglio's electors had enough votes to block him—so a deal was made: Enough Bergoglio votes would be given to Ratzinger to get him elected, on the condition that after the agreed number of years, Ratzinger must resign. Hence, the mention after the conclave of three years. Ratzinger remained in office even after the agreed number of years. In 2008, members of the "Sankt Gallen Gruppe" were already involved in ferocious opposition to Pope Benedict (as Monsignor Mario Marini had said to me), and even various threats were being made to Benedict (as another who knows him personally related to me). So, it is definitely not a tall tale that Cardinal Daneels is telling about his "mafia" group's opposition to Ratzinger in favour of Jorge Bergoglio. After Benedict's renunciation, reports originating from sources very close to Benedict spoke of coercion—which, if true, would invalidate a papal abdication. The ultimatum that Benedict must resign, was pronounced personally to Benedict by one of the kingpins of the "Sankt Gallen Gruppe", Cardinal Carlo M. Martini.

Just as the cardinals were entering the 2013 conclave, Cardinal Dolan very visibly was pointing at Bergoglio, as if to say that he is "our man". Perhaps that is not sufficient evidence to constitute a public delict, so that in itself would appear insufficient to invalidate the election of Bergoglio –but the coercion directed at Pope Benedict to make him resign invalidates his act of renunciation; and it also makes patent his motive for retaining his limited status as pope "Emeritus", as well as his very astutely worded Declaratio (and his own commentary on it of 27/02/2013, in which he states quite plainly that he has renounced only the power of governance, the "active exercise of the petrine ministry", while explicitly retaining a partial hold on the Petrine munus, as Canon Law professor Stefano Violi has demonstrated in his penetrating analysis of Benedict's Declaratio and final discourse of 27/02/2013). Due to the patent defect of intention to fully abdicate the papal office, his renunciation is canonically null & void. As Prof. Violi explains in the article, "On 11 February 2013, Benedict XVI declared his renunciation not of the office, but of its administration. The limited renunciation of the active exercise of the munus constitutes the absolute novelty of the renunciation of Benedict XVI". By renouncing only the exercise of the munus, but not the office itself, Benedict did not vacate the office, but remained in office as pope and Vicar of Christ. (cf. The Resignation of Benedict XVI Between History, Law and Conscience -- Professor Stefano Violi

http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/newsviews031315.pdf;http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350913)*

The coercion was not only exerted from within by the "mafia" group of ecclesiastical Masonry, but by the financial power of the Sect from the outside as well:

Bankers' financial blackmail forced Benedict XVI to "resign". 

An Italian journalist writes:

"The piece is of Maurizio Blondet.

"He writes that Pope Benedict was forced to resign not only because of internal pressures, but also because the SWIFT payment system had excluded the Vatican from the entire worldwide payment system, controlled by the USA.

"The Vatican’s bank was immediately readmitted when the Pope announced his resignation.

"This makes the Pope’s resignation invalid because they were not free from any sort coercion / duress.

"The election of Bergoglio was by consequence also invalid, which is what Father Paul Kramer has said from the start, all the way through. http://www.maurizioblondet.it/ratzinger-non-pote-ne-vender…/"

See also the following: http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/05/case-of-dual-papacy-deuxpapes-vermoulu.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/10/here-are-what-every-catholic-should_10.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/08/the-manifest-apostate-infidel-francis.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/06/on-anti-catholic-encyclical-of-francis-1.html

http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com.ng/2015/07/all-or-nothing-final-battle-being-fought.html

Manifest reprobate “Pope” Francis tells Lutheran woman to 'talk to the Lord' in discerning whether or not to participate in Communion

       By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Francis prays with the "Rev" Jens-Martin Kruse
 during a visit to the Lutheran "church"

Apostate Francis has caused another “controversy”—among Novus Ordites—by appearing to suggest that a Lutheran wife of a Catholic husband could receive holy Communion based on the fact that she is baptized and in accordance with her conscience. During a question and answer session at an evening prayer service held last Sunday in Rome’s heretical “Evangelical Lutheran Church”, Bergoglio was asked whether a Lutheran and Catholic married couple might “finally participate together in Communion”. The questioner referred to “the hurt we’ve felt together due to [our] difference of faith”. Francis cunningly said it was “not my competence” to give permission to do this, but quickly admitted: “I ask myself and don’t know how to respond – what you’re asking me, I ask myself the [same] question.” He then urged the Lutheran woman, Anke de Bernardinis,  to "talk to the Lord" about receiving holy Communion "and then go forward"...

Francis stressed the role of personal discernment rather than repeating Vatican II(heretical) Church teaching that Protestant spouses can only receive Holy Communion if they do not “have recourse for the sacrament” at their own “church”. He said: “There are questions that only if one is sincere with oneself and the little theological light one has, must be responded to on one’s own.”

Francis referred to a "bishop", the Protestant "Bishop" Jerónimo Podestá, who “went a little wrong – 48 years old, he married, [and then had] two children”. Francis suggested that the "bishop" had been helped in his moral journey by accompanying his family to Mass.

Rocco Palmo, on his blog, Whispers in the Loggia, said Bergoglio’s remarks “quite possibly show his hand on his intended course” on his post-synod document. A proposal to allow Anglican spouses of Catholics to receive Holy Communion had been included in the Instrumentum Laboris of the evil synod.

Indeed, it remains a mystery how millions of Catholics all over the world have not—even up till now—realised, as Father Kramer pointed out, that “Jorge Bergoglio is the Public Enemy No. 1 of the Catholic religion”. Why haven’t they if not because—just like their Papa Bergoglio—millions have equally lost the Faith?

It should be noted, however, that the abominable practice of giving Holy Communion to heretics did not originate from Bergoglio. Notorious heretics John Paul II and Benedict XVI did exactly the same thing and currently Francis is merely perfecting their evil work. For instance, John Paul II was seen publicly giving Holy Communion to the Protestant Tony Blair. On March 21, 2003 the Catholic Herald stated that John Paul II had personally given Tony Blair Holy Communion—the first time in history that a British prime minister had received the sacrament from the hands of the pontiff. The story was followed by such a flurry of denials that the newspaper was forced to withdraw the “claim” in its next issue. Yet, it was perfectly true, as the Pope's biographer Garry O'Connor discovered from several sources, including the papal chamberlain's office. Did John Paul II break “his own rules” by administering communion to an Anglican? Not quite: there was, at the time, a provision that non-Catholics could ask to receive communion "on a unique occasion for joy or for sorrow in the life of a family". Tony Blair presumably made such a request! Ironically, only two weeks after Tony Blair took communion from the heretical Pope, the Roman Curia issued fierce guidelines imposing a virtual ban on distributing communion to non-Catholics! Ah! A ban? But—two years after—during John Paul II’s burial, Benedict XVI was also seen giving Communion to the heretic brother Roger! (See the photo below).

Now the very background of all these errors can be found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law of John Paul II, which "abrogated" the 1917 Code of Canon Law of Pope Benedict XV. 844 §3 reads: 

“Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches”.

Indeed, "Canon"  844 §2 is simply terrible! It reads:

“Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid”.

Now don’t be fooled by the “danger of error or indifferentism” rhetoric. Here, Ladies and Gentlemen, we are simply unambiguously told that “sacraments” administered in some Protestant (or simply non-Catholic) “Churches” are valid!

Joseph Ratzinger giving communion to a Protestant heretic
 during John Paul II's funeral in 2005.

Now back to Francis. On October 7, 2013, the Anglican Communion News Service published a report by the Church of Ireland Gazette according to which the Novus Ordo Archbishop of Birmingham, Bernard Longley, stated that since the 1983 Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law changed the pre-Vatican II blanket prohibition against non-Catholics receiving Holy Communion and thus allowed a Protestant reception in principle, he could envision that in the future, the Vatican would expand the limited circumstances to allow a more frequent reception by heretics. Longley said:

“Given that that represents a change, and a very significant shift away from the impossibility to the limited possibility, then I could imagine and foresee one of the fruits of our ecumenical engagement as moving towards a deeper understanding of communion and a deeper sharing, a deeper communion between our Churches which perhaps would lead to reconsideration of some of the circumstances”. (Church of Ireland Gazette, "Vatican's Rules on Eucharistic Sharing Could Be Further Relaxed", published at Anglican Communion News Service, Oct. 7, 2013).

These comments came at a time when "Pope" Francis  announced an extraordinary synod of bishops for October 5-19, 2014, to discuss further "reforms" in the Vatican II Church (meaning further destruction of any resemblance to the Roman Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII), specifically regarding "communion" for people in adulterous relationships, and laws governing marriage annulments. They also coincide with a decision of the German Archdiocese of Freiburg to allow public adulterers to receive their putative “sacraments”.

The Catholic Church forbids non-Catholics—let alone public heretics—from receiving Holy Communion. Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy.’”

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”

The full text of Bergoglio’s present remarks are available at Whispers in the Loggia.

WHY WOMEN ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO WEAR HEAD COVERINGS DURING NOVUS ORDO MASSES!

 Novus Ordo Mass where women have been enslaved!

    Catholic Tridentine Mass where women still veil (though often imperfectly)      

By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Throughout history—even among the pagans and other worshippers of false gods—it has been common for women to wear head coverings during worship and even beyond that, something that has precedent in St. Paul’s epistles. “You yourselves judge:” says the holy apostle, “doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered?” (See 1 Cor. 11: 2-16).   

A perfect way of veiling. 

Head covering was mandated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.   Canon 1262 states:

1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.

2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

This pious custom fell gradually into disuse even as modernists invaded our holy church!

In the 1970s, after the Novus Ordo mass was imposed on Catholics there was a judgment issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a document entitled Inter Insigniores, which basically diabolically stated that since chapel veils were “not a matter of faith”, it was no longer mandatory for women to wear them.

In paragraph 4 it states:

"It must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor. 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value."

Here we see anti-Catholics in action! The inspired writings of St. Paul have now become mere “ordinances probably inspired by the customs of the period”, mere “requirements” which “no longer have a normative value”! Indeed, how dangerous this new religion can be! You can read the whole evil document here.

In the 1983 Code of Canon Law of the heretic John Paul II—the one in effect today, an evil Canon which even permits a priest to give Holy Communion to a Protestant, something which John Paul II and Benedict XVI themselves practised—the canon about head coverings was not re-issued. Now, you might be thinking, “Well, just because they didn’t reissue it doesn’t mean that it’s not still in effect, right?” Wrong!

Canon 6 of the current code states that all subsequent laws that are not reissued in the new code are abrogated:

Can. 61. When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated:

1. the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2. other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescriptions of this Code, unless particular laws are otherwise expressly provided for;

3. any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code;

4. other universal disciplinary laws dealing with a matter which is regulated ex integro by this Code.

We see then the source of the scandal witnessed all over the Catholic world today! We see then how modern Catholic women have been enslaved by the devil, using wolves who masquerade as Catholic bishops, cardinals and even popes! 

Indeed the Society of St. Pius X must be 24 hours vigilant because this current unchristian attitude has simply gone viral. As one "traditional" priest (not SSPX) puts it, “But even at the Latin Masses I offer, women exhibit diversity in this matter. Some wear the longer veil (mantilla) others a short veil. Others  wear hats. Still others wear no head covering at all" And he allows it! Indeed, lawlessness!

As I wrote in my piece, ‘A Feminized Catholic Church?’ , “St. Augustine, the great theologian, describes any failure in the veil to conceal all the hair, even a minor one, as a violation of chastity. St. Ambrose of Milan says: “Is anything so conducive to lust as with unseemly movements thus to expose in nakedness those parts of the body which either nature has hidden or custom has veiled, to sport with the looks, to turn the neck, to loosen the hair? Fitly was the next step an offence against God. For what modesty can there be? ”

Related:

• A “Feminized” Catholic Church?
• For the 1917 Code of Canon Law, here: http://www.canonlaw.info/masterpage1917.htm